From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-13 04:47:54
As Beman pointed out I should have replied to this before - basically I just
agree with everything - but here we go anyway:
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Here's my lengthy review of Boost.TR1
> Doug raised the question of whether the native implementations should
> used by default, but I think that can be done bit by bit as more
> native implementations appear and Boost.Config learns which platforms
> which parts.
I think by and large the native version *has* to be used by default,
otherwise the Boost and std versions end up competing for the std::tr1
namespace. Teaching Boost.Config about various std libs is obviously an
ongoing process. One thing I must investigate is whether it's possible to
rename std::tr1 a little like STLport does so that the Boost verions can be
used even when std versions are available.
> One thing I think is missing is a macro to say "use as much as
> from my native compiler/library, but use Boost versions of the rest."
> This matters e.g. if a user trusts their compiler vendor more than
> Boost (maybe because they have a support contract and know they'll get
> preferential treatment, or they just don't like the Boost website ;-)
> AFAICT a user would have to manually define the right
> BOOST_HAS_TR1_XXX macros for their compiler (which would be tedious
> to define for cross-platform code.) Boost.Config should be taught
> which compilers
> provide which parts so users just define one macro. Again, this can
> come later (and I'll try to help with the GCC parts.)
Yep, the library is all config stuff really, it's a matter of keeping
Boost.Config up to date with new releases.
>> * What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> Very good. It might be useful to list all the BOOST_HAS_TR1_XXX
> on the Configuration page, so you can glance at them all at once (most
> people will know what components each macro relates to.)
Yep, will do, or else add them to the Boost.Config docs.
> Typo in usage.html says "doing will cause them to cease working."
> (not "doing so")
Well spotted, thanks.
Thanks for the review, John.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk